The Court held that the definitions of 'conduct' and 'engage in conduct' in s 4.1(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) must be read conjunctively, such that a person may 'engage in conduct' which is a 'state of affairs' for the purposes of the proceeds of general crime offence in s 400.2B(6), following and extending Agius v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 601 beyond conspiracy to money laundering offences. The 'state of affairs' must result from some act or omission of the accused (here, general supervision and management of a money laundering syndicate), and the requirement of '2 or more occasions' denotes a continuing offence requiring proof of specific events during the charge period when the state of affairs was in force. The Court dismissed the accused's motion to quash the count, holding it disclosed an offence known to law, but left the adequacy of particulars for later determination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.